Archive for the ‘UN’ Category

Any decent parent knows that there are four keys to the effective disciplining of any wayward child:

1) Maintain clear boundaries

2) Be consistent

3) Be united (mom and dad must maintain a united front before their child)

4) Impose effective punishments

If a parent cannot do these things, he, she, or they will raise a little tyrant who will ultimately become a monster.

A monster like Bashar al-Assad has turned out to be (in spite of both of Obama’s handpicked Secretaries of State’s incredibly naïve and morally idiotic assessments to the contrary).

Notice I’m not trying to denounce Obama according to some “right wing talking points.” I’m just trying to use an approach that any halfway decent mother or father ought to recognize as being true so you can begin to see just how wildly Barack Obama has failed America.

In regards to Syria, let’s see how Obama has fared in these four things that, as I said, any CHILD should be able to understand.

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

Not given the fact that Syria crossed your damned red line FOURTEEN TIMES before you showed so much as a tiny hint of the balls necessary to do anything about it whatsoever – and then only because the most recent and blatant use had the world pretty much stating as a categorical fact that you looked like the weak fool that you are.

You set a clear boundary, then allowed Syria to cross it over and over and over. You said there was a red line. But there wasn’t one. You said you were going to attack, and that you didn’t need Congress or the United Nations or anybody else to approve, and then you decided that hell, you were completely wrong and that you DID need Congress, the United Nations and the international community to approve when you saw that pretty much everybody on earth saw through your weakness and your fragile, trampled-on ego. You said you were going to attack and then you tossed it like a live hand grenade to Congress because you didn’t have the balls to make a decision. And of course that meant that there was no attack and now that there almost certainly never will be an attack.

You couldn’t have been more INCONSISTENT, Obama. And that’s why Syria kept getting bolder and bolder and bolder while you dithered.

What was the second rule?

2) Be consistent

The first rule of parenting is to be consistent. The way you have never been, Obama. Such as when you demonized your predecessor George W. Bush for being some kind of rogue cowboy who didn’t go to the United Nations only to prove that you are a complete an abject hypocrite without shame, without honor and without any shred of decency or integrity first in Libya and now again in Syria.

Are you consistent, Obama?

You went from saying a) you didn’t need Congress to attack to saying that b) you DID need Congress’s authorization to attack to saying that c) you weren’t going to attack and please don’t vote because you’d lose and look stupid and weak. You sent your Secretary of State out on a Friday to tell the world that it was urgent that we act immediately and then the very next day told the country that there was no urgency and a day, a weak, a month, whatever, it made no difference.

Let’s see how (note, NOT some right wing think tank) the über über liberal Los Angeles Timesput it:

WASHINGTON — In the last two weeks, President Obama has brought the United States to the brink of another military operation, then backed off unexpectedly. He went abroad and tried to rally international partners to join his cause, but returned empty-handed. He launched one of the biggest public relations and lobbying campaigns of his presidency, then aborted the mission. He called the nation to its televisions to make the case for using force, but made the case for more diplomacy.

The White House‘s stop-and-start response to the chemical weapons attack in Syria three weeks ago could at best be described as deftly improvisational and at worst as impulsive and risky.

By either analysis, it has been the handiwork of a foreign policy team that, just months into its term, has presided over shifts in strategy, changing messages and a striking countermand from the president.

“This has been a roller coaster. And there have been enough sudden turns where you weren’t sure if the car was still attached to the rails,” said Philip J. Crowley, former State Department spokesman and now a fellow at the George Washington University Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.

The ride reflects the difficult standoff with Syria over chemical weapons, a crisis with a cast of unpredictable and hostile foreign leaders and few good options. The shifting picture has left the Obama team to call “audibles,” Crowley said. “I do think that there’s a more coherent strategy than the public articulation of that strategy.”

The president and his advisors faced harsh criticism this week as they lurched from one decision to another. Many outsiders viewed the president’s last-minute move to seek congressional authorization for military strikes in Syria as naive and dicey, given his toxic relationships with many in Congress. His subsequent outreach to Capitol Hill was blasted by lawmakers as insufficient. He faced a near-certain defeat in the House.

His quick embrace of a surprise diplomatic overture from the Russians only demonstrated his desperation, some lawmakers and political observers charged. “I think it’s about a president that’s really uncomfortable being commander in chief,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), explaining the administration’s “muddle-ness.”

Let’s see how the even more über über liberal New York Times put it:

But to Mr. Obama’s detractors, including many in his own party, he has shown a certain fecklessness with his decisions first to outsource the decision to lawmakers in the face of bipartisan opposition and then to embrace a Russian diplomatic alternative that even his own advisers consider dubious. Instead of displaying decisive leadership, Mr. Obama, to these critics, has appeared reactive, defensive and profoundly challenged in standing up to a dangerous world.

Why did Obama suddenly change his mind and take this decision to Congress? Because he’s an incredibly cynical political weasel, that’s why. Obama thought he could pin the decision on REPUBLICANS and if they didn’t vote his way, demonize them. The only problem was that his complete lack of leadership and his total incompetence meant that he hadn’t won over his own Democrats. And so all of a sudden it went to Congress but Obama had nobody to blame because both parties were UNITED AGAINST HIS FECKLESS AND INCOMPETENT WEAKNESS.

Yeah, let’s cross that “consistent” thingy off your list, Obama. Because both friend and foe alike agree that you’ve been as all-over-the-damn-board as you possibly could have been. NOBODY knows what the hell you’re going to do – even your weak, gutless SELf – because your policy and your position shifts with every breeze of every wind.

On August 26th, 2013, at the request of the President, John Kerry made one of the greatest speeches ever delivered by a Secretary of State. In that scathing speech against the Assad regime in Syria he said, “”Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders, by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity,” Kerry further said. “By any standard it is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable.”

Then the oddest thing imaginable happened. Just hours later President Obama made a second speech that completely undermined Kerry and made him look like a fool. Obama took the approach that it was not that urgent and he could wait until Congress reconvened on Sept. 9th so he could present his case for a limited strike against Syria. He would then seek their vote of approval. I’m paraphrasing Obama, “They are the representatives for the people (of America)” Apparently Obama was inferring that if he carried out a strike with the approval of Congress then the American people would be responsible for whatever followed because he was only doing their bidding. Not only that, but Obama would be let off the hook for his “red line” remark that he has failed to follow through on. He’s putting the responsibility for military action on the Congress, not him.

Following his low keyed Syrian speech, Obama left for a round of golf, which greatly accented the division between Kerry’s urgent call for military action in Syria and Obama’s, “Let’s wait for Congress to come back and we’ll discuss it” speech.

To the world, they both looked the fool, both being completely out of synch with each other! How could Obama have approved Kerry’s speech only to let him twist in the wind hours later and then go golfing? This is the most amazing diplomatic blunder I’ve ever witnessed in the last 40 years, even during the Carter years!

To recap, Obama put in place his red line policy. Then Syria violated it and he did nothing. Then he dispatched warships presumably to launch an attack of his red line policy and when they were in position… he did nothing. Then he allowed his Secretary of Defense to make an impassioned speech calling for the necessity of immediate military action…but he still did nothing and worse, he made a request for Congress to make the decision. Essentially he left Kerry to hang as he went to play golf.

So Obama did a really crappy job maintaining clear boundaries after his “red line” blathering. He utterly failed to be consistent. And there is no “united front” in this incompetent White House (I mean, Obama can’t even present a united damn front with OBAMA, let alone his top officials).

How about that fourth thing:

4) Impose effective punishments

I’ll just sum that one up in the words of Obama’s Secretary of State:

“That is exactly what we are talking about doing — unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”

Let’s get back to the parents confronting a child who has just done something unbelievably evil: “we’re going to have to punish you, but don’t worry: it will be an “unbelievably small” punishment.

But, oh, you won’t EVER misbehave again after we finish with our “unbelievably small” punishment.

If anybody believes that Obama’s threat of an “unbelievably small, limited kind of effort” scared anybody into doing anything, that person is simply an idiot without the first clue. Because “unbelievably small” is another way of saying “unbelievably ineffective.”

Yeah, all I’ll do is give you a stern look if you cross my red line. But you mark my words, it will be such a stern look that you will never dare defy me again.

It reminds me of a line of dialogue from the movie Yellowbeard:

“Yes, and when the invaders reach the throne room, my men will rise up and dispatch all with majestic heavenly force.”

Let me assure you that the plan didn’t work out. And neither will Obama’s equally stupid and equally arrogant plan.

Any parent who has ever spent three seconds with their own kid – let alone the snot-nosed little brats that run around like hoodlums in most any store today – knows that Barack Obama has failed America in the most fundamental way there is.

We need to understand what the boundaries are, and Obama doesn’t have a damn clue. We need consistency and clarity, and we don’t have any. We need to have a united front that we can rally around, and instead we get talking points that change with every wayward breeze. And we need to know that we can trust our president to do something that will actually ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING. And we have no such confidence.

Barack Obama is a disgrace to the United States and to the presidency. Period.

You need to understand why Obama was willing to lie and lie so outrageously about the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in Libya. A lot of people simply cannot understand why Obama would lie about a terrorist attack. Here’s why:

Obama had based his ENTIRE foreign policy “triumph” on just ONE event: the killing of Osama bin Laden. Everything else – EVERYTHING ELSE – amounted to Obama’s foreign policy being a disaster that was in shambles: China’s rise as a major military power that directly threatens the United States and its control over the Pacific under Obama’s nose; the asinine “Russian-reset” that proved such a debacle as Russia again and again thwarted virtually every single thing the United States tried to do in the United Nations that Obama almost exclusively relies upon; Iran now almost imminently away from nuclear weapons; the disastrous euphemistically titled “Arab Spring” that has brought violence and anti-American Islamist regimes in place of stable ones in vital Arab countries like Egypt that had been allied with the United States for decades. I mean, a terrorist organization captured the Egyptian election and is now running the country; well over 30,000 civilians have been murdered in the Syrian bloodbath while no one has done anything to even stop Iran from arming the Syrian regime. And if Obama wanted to call the intervention that removed Gaddafi from power in Libya, that is now gone as a major al Qaeda-linked terrorist attack resulted in the murder of the first US Ambassador to be murdered since Carter screwed up the universe in 1979.

What did Obama want to do? How did he want to posture? He wanted to bury his head in the sand and pretend that the killing of Osama bin Laden essentially amounted to the killing of al Qaeda. “Bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is on the run,” Obama said over and over. As if the former event ipso facto had resulted in the latter conclusion. And Obama was desperately hoping that his total fabrication, his grand illusion, would last him past the election.

But it didn’t. Instead, a devastating terrorist attack linked closely to al Qaeda occurred on sovereign United States territory in Libya that resulted in the murder of a US Ambassador and three other Americans. And what we found out since has been an equally devastating indictment against Obama’s foreign policy leadership. We have found out that the murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens had been pleading for increased security even as the Obama administration proceeded to take away what little security he had in the most dangerous state in the world. We have found that there had been more than 230 “security incidents” in Libya prior to that withdrawing of security that cost Ambassador Stevens and three other great Americans their lives. In two incidents, an explosive device was used – and in one a giant hole had been blown in the wall protecting the Consulate. We found that both Britain had closed down its embassy and the Red Cross had closed down its presence in Libya because of that growing buildup of terrorism that Obama was so obvlivious to because he’d chosen to skip 60% of his daily intelligence briefings.

As bad as these things are, it gets worse. Because they say that the worst thing an administration can do – the very worst thing – is to try to cover-up a scandal. And the cover-up is almost always worse than the scandal itself. In this case that is debatable; Watergate, for instance, did not result in the murder of Americans and it did not result in an enemy attack against United States territory and the humiliation of the nation with terrorist flags going up around half a dozen of our embassies in addition to our ambassador being murdered. But we find that cover-up is exactly what Obama did.

Let’s look at what the Obama administration said to describe the attack first. Note they did NOT refer to it as a preplanned and coordinated “terrorist attack,” but rather as a “spontaneous” one that resulted from some stupid video.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”

“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.

“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

WASHINGTON — The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Those statements have become highly charged political fodder as the presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House committee questioned State Department officials for hours about what GOP lawmakers said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist Islamic militants in North Africa.

And in their debate on Tuesday, President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney argued over when Obama first said it was a terror attack. In his Rose Garden address the morning after the killings, Obama said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

But Republicans say he was speaking generally and didn’t specifically call the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the president and other key members of his administration referring at first to the anti-Muslim movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating event.

Now congressional intelligence committees are demanding documents to show what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during and after the attacks.

The White House now says the attack probably was carried out by an al Qaida-linked group, with no public demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary RodhamClinton blamed the “fog of war” for the early conflicting accounts.

The officials who told the AP about the CIA cable spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to release such information publicly.

Congressional aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this week to build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare that to what the White House was telling the public about the attack. That could give Romney ammunition to use in his foreign policy debate with Obama on Monday night.

The two U.S. officials said the CIA station chief in Libya compiled intelligence reports from eyewitnesses within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate that indicated militants launched the violence, using the pretext of demonstrations against U.S. facilities in Egypt against the film to cover their intent. The report from the station chief was written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached intelligence agencies in Washington the next day, intelligence officials said.

Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points sent by the CIA to Congress said “demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault.”

The briefing points, obtained by the AP, added: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations” but did not mention eyewitness accounts that blamed militants alone.

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming from only one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that “it was clear a group of people gathered that evening” in Benghazi, but that the early question was “whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd,” and it took until the following week to figure that out.

But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress, from both political parties.

“I think what happened was the director of intelligence, who is a very good individual, put out some speaking points on the initial intelligence assessment,” said Senate intelligence committee chair Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in an interview with local news channel CBS 5 in California this week. “I think that was possibly a mistake.”

“The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. “It ended up being pretty far afield, so we want to figure out why … though we don’t want to deter the intelligence community from sharing their best first impressions” after such events in the future.

“The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying,” said Rep. William Thornberry, R-Texas, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“How could they be so certain immediately after such events, I just don’t know,” he said. “That raises suspicions that there was political motivation.”

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.

Two officials who witnessed Petraeus‘ closed-door testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that during questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts who disagreed with the conclusion that a mob angry over the video had initiated the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not mention the CIA’s early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that the account could change as more intelligence was uncovered, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the hearing was closed.

Beyond the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it’s also proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently killed Stevens and his communications aide or launched the mortars that killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as contract security guards at a fallback location. That delay is prompting lawmakers to question whether the intelligence community has the resources it needs to investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight against al-Qaida in Libya or across Africa.

Intelligence officials say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi militia, Ansar al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but is known to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan locals at the consulate during the violence, and intelligence intercepts show the militants were in contact with AQIM militants before and after the attack, one U.S. intelligence official said.

But U.S. intelligence has not been able to match those reported sightings with the faces of attackers caught on security camera recordings during the attack, since many U.S. intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the aftermath of the violence, the two U.S. intelligence officials said.

Nor have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers used, setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the backup compounds, then attacking the main entrance to distract, while sending a larger force to assault the rear.

Clear-cut answers may prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to bring about relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is so new it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the location of U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.

How do you think the press would have covered it had George Bush essentially stated that the war on terror was over due to his policies and triumphs? How do you think the press would have covered it if an event such as the one described above had rather catastrophically proven that Bush was a lying sack of cockroach turds?

This was NOTthe result of poor intelligence, as the dishonest Obama administration is deceitfully demagoguing; this was NOT the result of a failure of intelligence, it was the failure of Obama policy. Period. The intelligence services were warning about an attack well before one actually occurred; specifically Ambassador Chris Stevens’ security team was screaming that the terrorist threat was growing and they were dangerously exposed. No. You can’t blame that on poor intelligence, unless you want to blame it on the poor intelligence of the commander-in-chief who couldn’t be bothered with such intelligence developments.

I’ve come to realize how the game is played: if a Republican is president, and says ANYTHING that isn’t the absolute unvarnished truth, he is decried as a liar by the media. If, on the other hand, a Democrat is president and tells a thousand lies wrapped in a half-truth, well, he is praised for his integrity and transparency.

What is ironic, and possibly even funny depending on the outcome of the election, is that in doing the above in the case of Libya, the media may have fatally wounded their own messiah. Because had they come out after Obama hard right away the way they would have come after Bush, they kept allowing Obama to have more and more rope to put around his neck with his lies and cover-ups – whereas Bush would have been smashed in the face with the very first appearance of deception and forced to come clean. And what is happening now is that very pissed off intelligence professionals who don’t like being slandered are going to keep a story alive just before an election that otherwise likely would have been put to bed a month ago. And by their refusal to go after Obama they have allowed him to fatally wound his own reelection.

The same thing happened with the first debate: the media sheltered Obama and Obama himself went only on friendly media territory where he would never be challenged. And as a result he suffered the most disastrous first debate performance of any sitting president in history, losing by a catastrophic fifty freaking points because he was so ridiculously unprepared.

Ask your liberal friends to finish this sentence: “If the rich get richer, the poor get ______.”

Betcha a dollar your liberal will reflexively say, “poorer.”

The problem is that that is simply not true. Unless an economy is a fixed sized pie such that if you get more of the pie, I by definition get less. And as I shall try to explain, that is NOTthe way a free market economy works.

The reality that liberals are too morally stupid to understand is that if I start a business, I start making my OWN pie. By starting a business and becoming successful, I’m not stealing from anyone and I’m not exploiting anybody; rather, in direct opposition to what Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren – the brains behind Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to go along with a genuine fake American Indian (read, “fake oppressed minority = fake victim”) believe - I AM BUILDING SOMETHING if I create a business. And no, you liberal dumbass, I am NOTstealing from somebody else; I am building something where there had been nothing before. I am putting a positive attitude that you have never had and will never understand into action and I am starting something.

“The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, the education, the money, than circumstances, than failure, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company… a church… a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past… we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. And so it is with you… we are in charge of our Attitudes.” — Charles R. Swindoll

That’s right, liberal. Nobody’s taken anything from you; nobody’s oppressed you; and the only reason that you’re a victim is because you have spent your life victimizing YOURSELF and allowing your messiah Obama and liberals like him to talk you into being a weak, useless human being. If you have the kind of positive attitude that Swindoll is describing, nothing is going to hold you down or hold you back – and the LAST thing you’re ever going to do is start whining like a liberal victim who is pathetic and cannot do anything unless government does it for you.

Here’s the thing: I’d love it if somebody asked Obama to complete that sentence I began with: If the become richer, the poor become ______. And after the Marxist said “poorer,” I’d ask him what he thinks Americans should do given the fact THAT AMERICANS HAVE ABOUT THE WEALTHIEST DAMN LIFESTYLE ON THE PLANET. I would demand that Obama explain on his view why Americans should redistribute trillions of dollars of American gross domestic product so that the desperately poor people in Africa and China and India and the Middle East and pretty much all over the damn planet could have more.

Here’s the thing. “If the rich get richer, the poor get poorer” the way liberals will invariably say, then what about the question, “If America gets richer, the rest of the world gets ______”??? How would the answer not be the same??? If America gets richer, then by liberal doctrine the rest of the world – particularly the poorest regions of the world – must necessarily get poorer.

Go to the Congo, where the GDP per capital is just $348. That means the average person is forced to live (“subsist” is probably more fitting) on the currency equivalent of just 348 dollars per year. That’s 29 bucks a month total. That’s living the good life on 95 cents a day. These people have NOTHING. They don’t have houses; they have tiny little shacks that they build from whatever they can find; they don’t have air conditioning or refrigerators or laundry machines or for that matter electricity or plumbing. Their kids don’t have disposable diapers. Because they’ve never tried the free market economics or limited government you liberals despise, they’ve got squat diddly butkus and they’ll never have anything BUT squat diddly butkus. And so hey, liberal poor person, unless you’ve never had more than $348 of welfare benefits or permanent unemployment benefits or allowance from daddy or however the hell you get your money and benefits in the course of a year, YOU DAMN WELL OWE THAT TRULY POOR SONOFABITCH IN THE CONGO. And by your own rhetoric if you don’t send pretty much everything you get to the Congo, to Liberia, etc. etc. etc., then you are a greedy one percenter and shame on you. You owe those poor people every single SCINTILLA as much as the rich guy in America owes YOU. And what you know if you’ve ever had an honest moment in your entire life is that you keep demanding somebody ELSE give to YOU but YOU’VE never given people who’d rejoice on a tiny fraction of what you’ve got SQUAT.

I’m talking to you, resident of Detroit’s poorest neighborhood. Because if you aint nearly starved to death you’ve got it FAR better than most of the population of the planet have it. And it’s damn time you quit reaching your hand out and being a liberal TAKER and instead putting it in your wallet and becoming a liberal GIVER.

I’m talking to you, you damn liberal socialist hypocrites. All you know how to do is justify redistribution when it applies to YOU or, in the case of liberal politicians, when it applies to your constituency as you pimp somebody else’s money in exchange for your damn votes so you can live like a fat cat like Charlie Rangel.

So a truly consistent liberal must therefore need to require America to lose wealth so the rest of the world can get richer instead.

So what’s Obama’s answer to the United Nations imposing a global tax? Is Obama going to say he’s against the people of the Congo getting richer? Then how DARE he allow America to produce more wealth?!?!? What’s YOUR answer for why YOU shouldn’t have to pay right out of your ass because if you live in America, then compared to the majority of people on earth, you are a greedy one percenter compared to them???

Like a bad sequel to a rotten horror movie, the debate over global taxation once again is rearing its ugly head — courtesy of the United Nations. And, despite lacking the requisite hockey mask and chain saw, the seemingly countless proposals for the imposition of global taxes are truly terrifying.

In July, Inter Presse news service reported that a top U.N. official was preparing a new study that will outline numerous global tax proposals to be considered by the General Assembly at its September meeting. The proposals will likely include everything from global taxes on e-mails and Internet use to a global gas tax and levies on airline travel. If adopted, American taxpayers could wind up paying hundreds of billions of dollars each year to the United Nations.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is among those leading the charge, having stated that he “strongly supports finding new sources of funding” for the U.N. through global taxes, according to Inter Presse. In fact, Annan made very clear his support for the imposition of global taxes in a 2001 Technical Note that he authored for a U.N. conference. “The need to finance the provision of global public goods in an increasingly globalized world also adds new urgency to the need for innovative new sources of financing,” Annan wrote. The Note goes on to describe and evaluate the merits of several global tax proposals.

Global tax proposals are not new. Various plans have been flitting around in academic circles and liberal and socialist think-tanks for decades. And while the United States and other developed nations have staved off such proposals in the past, third world nations have increasingly dominated the U.N. General Assembly by sheer numbers since 1970. As a result, they have begun to see promise in their quest to take and keep for themselves the wealth of citizens from nations like the United States — specifically using the term “redistribution.” Recent U.N. actions have also provided a new excuse and set the stage for the third world to not only renew its pursuit of global taxes but also hold out hope for eventual success.

A lot of conservatives hate using the good word “liberalism” to describe liberals. That’s because classical liberalism is actually a refutation of everything your progressive “liberal” Democrat stands for:

So if modern liberals aren’t really “liberals” at all, then what are they? They are a bunch of self-centered, greedy, narcissistic little whiners who harbor the basic worldview, “Everybody owes me something and forced redistribution is wonderful as long as its somebody else’s money that’s getting redistributed.” That’s what they are. They are people who have perverted the teachings of Christ and warped American history and the Constitution and system of government our founding fathers gave us to mandate socialism. Unless you can find where Jesus taught, “Rendering to Caesar ISrendering unto God.” Unless you can find where Jesus taught that a giant socialist government (or ANY kind of government for that matter) should forcibly seize and redistribute people’s property based on naked demagoguery and cynical political partisanship.

Hey, tell you what: just show me where Jesus taught, “If you earn less than $200,000 a year, you don’t have to give ANYTHING to the less fortunate; you get to use the raw power of government to take stuff from others so you can vote to redistribute it to yourselves.”

No, that’s not in the teachings of Jesus and it’s not in the writings of the founding fathers who forged a republic for Americans based on the principles of liberty and freedom.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Karl Marx

If you want to know where modern liberalism comes from, THAT’S WHERE IT COMES FROM.

Jesus never absolves the poor from giving; to the contrary, HE calls for the poor to give:

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.” — Mark 12:41-44

So you aren’t off the hook any more than that rich guy you feel so self-righteous to hate and demonize and demagogue, poor liberal.

You, who judge and condemn the rich and demand the state confiscate more and ever more of what they work to earn, another teaching of Jesus applies to YOU:

“For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” — Matthew 7:2

It’s time you lived up to your own damn hypocritical rhetoric and slogans, you liberals (and especially you POOR liberals).

But don’t you worry, you pathological hypocrites who would never DREAM of paying taxes yourselves that you want everybody else to pay for YOU, if Obama gets reelected, HE’LL FORCE YOU TO REDISTRIBUTE YOUR WEALTH THE SAME WAY YOU WANTED HIM TO FORCE RICH PEOPLE TO REDISTRIBUTE THEIRS.

If the so-called “rich” don’t deserve their money because they’ve got more than you do, poor, stupid liberal; what the hell makes you think that YOU deserve YOUR money given that you’ve got a damn sight more than most of the world’s poor?

Somebody ought to take all your stuff away that the poor people in the Congo don’t have, have never had, and probably never WILL have (because the poorest countries are usually also the most socialistic countries and their failed economic system guarantees the constant destruction of wealth as corrupt government officials keep “redistributing” a shrinking economy into their own pockets). Because that’s “economic justice” by your own rhetoric.

You can’t win with what the left is saying. What they claim is guaranteed destruction and it is only bought by bad people who are selfish and greedy hypocrites who demand that somebody else should be forced to take responsibility for their failed lives.

The truth is this: Wealth is not a fixed-sized pie. The left is wrong; human creativity and ingenuity is such that people can always come along with new ideas that make them rich and create jobs for other people and improve the lives of other people who use their product or service. They won’t be getting rich at somebody else’s expense; they’ll be building a pie where no pie existed before and that pie will make the overall pie of an economy larger. If the rich get richer, other people can learn from that rich person’s example and be encouraged by it and also get richer. The left is simply flat-out wrong.

The United States must do more to heal the wounds of indigenous peoples caused by more than a century of oppression, including restoring control over lands Native Americans consider to be sacred, according to a U.N. human rights investigator.

James Anaya, the U.N. special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, just completed a 12-day visit to the United States where he met with representatives of indigenous peoples in the District of Columbia, Arizona, Alaska, Oregon, Washington State, South Dakota, and Oklahoma. He also met with U.S. government officials.

“I have heard stories that make evident the profound hurt that indigenous peoples continue to feel because of the history of oppression they have faced,” Anaya said in a statement issued by the U.N. human rights office in Geneva Friday.

That oppression, he said, has included the seizure of lands and resources, the removal of children from their families and communities, the loss of languages, violation of treaties, and brutality, all grounded in racial discrimination.

Anaya welcomed the U.S. decision to endorse the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2010 and other steps the government has taken, but said more was needed.

Keep in mind just which nations have served on this “Human Rights” body for the most liberal and most radically secular humanist organization ever to curse the world (that’s right; even worse than the Democrat Party!): a study concludes that, “According to the assessment given above, the most repressive regimes in the world currently enjoy a highly inflated rate of representation on the Human Rights Commission.”

For the record, the US Supreme Court ruled many years ago that the seizure of the land upon which Mt. Rushmore was built was in fact illegal. And the United States government has been compensating the Indian tribes for that land ever since. And frankly, that’s the best any nation can ever be expected to do.

How about this alternative solution: if you are not a 100 percent pure-blooded Native American Indian, you must leave the North American Continent for good. Because your ancestors stole the land, pure and simple. And none of this “I’m one-half Cherokee” crap; because the other half of your ancestors are guilty of the same crime the rest of us are, and you’ve got to pay for the crimes of your ancestors same as the rest of us. Same thing all over the world: if you are not a full-blooded aborigine, you must move; you must leave your land because your ancestors stole it from somebody else and you’ve got to pay for the sins of the past.

Let’s have nearly the entire human race climb aboard space ships and blast off, destination unknown, to (hopefully) find a living space that we don’t have to take from some poor sentient or even non-sentient species.

You start to see what a joke this crap becomes. Particularly when you understand additionally that this is nothing more than liberals – the most intolerant people who ever lived – imposing their “new morality” upon all of history.

But that’s liberalism, and liberalism equals insanity.

Now, Barack Obama would ordinarily be all for this. But take a look at Mt. Rushmore and you might see the rub:

Following his interview with 60 minutes last week, President Obama is now under fire from the right for comments he made implicitly suggesting that he was the fourth-best president in American history. “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln,” he said.

So take a look at Mt. Rushmore as Obama sees it –

– and you understand the problem.

Unless Obama believes that the Indians, in their appreciation of his wonderfulness, would recreate Mt Rushmore with Obama’s image on it. Then we’re in trouble.

Attorney In hijab Defends Call For Other Women At 9/11 Hearing To Wear ‘Appropriate’ Clothing

The defense attorney who wore a traditional Islamic outfit during the rowdy arraignment of the accused Sept. 11 terrorists is defending her courtroom appeal that other women in the room wear more “appropriate” clothing to the proceedings — out of respect for her client’s Muslim beliefs.

Cheryl Bormann, counsel for defendant Walid bin Attash, attended the arraignment Saturday dressed in a hijab, apparently because her client insisted on it. She further requested that the court order other women to follow that example so that the defendants do not have to avert their eyes “for fear of committing a sin under their faith.”

At a press conference Sunday at Guantanamo Bay, Bormann said she dresses in a hijab at “all times” when she meets with her client “out of respect” for his beliefs. Asked why she requested other women do the same, Bormann said, “When you’re on trial for your life, you need to be focused.”

Bormann, who is not Muslim, claimed the issue came up several years ago, when a paralegal wore “very short skirts” and it became a distraction for the defendants. She said that on Saturday, “somebody” was also dressed “in a way that was not in keeping with my client’s religious beliefs.”

I suppose if Cheryl Bormann were representing Ferengi terrorists, she would insist that all women simply go nude altogether in the courtroom. That’s the very least decent women can do to show proper respect.

It doesn’t matter that the mass murder of 3,000 innocent Americans was itself the most profound act of cultural intolerance imaginable. Liberals don’t think that way.

Liberals are so “open-minded” their brains have fallen out and splattered all over the place. That, combined with their utterly hypocritical intolerance for anything and anybody they truly disagree with (try to imagine liberals actually bending over backwards for evangelical Christians for a har-har) and you see the problem with these people.

If you didn’t think that the global warming alarmist movement was out of control; you’re already an idiot in my estimation.

But what was bad is now worse.

First, there’s the frank admission that conservatives have been proclaiming from every rooftop all along; that global warming (relabeled ‘climate change’ when ‘global warming’ became another ‘inconvenient truth’ for them) is and always has been about the socialist redistribution of wealth, rather than any kind of legitimate science:

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.

Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.

[…]

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

And just who the heck is this Ottmar Edenhofer guy? He’s the man who was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland. He’s the the deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology.

In other words, he is hardly a global warming nobody. He’s a global warming alarmist bigwig who clearly understands the global warming alarmist agenda. If he made a mistake, it was that he was honest (something very few leftists can be accused of).

And he’s telling you – as the new generation of global warming alarmists who are now calling themselves “climate change” alarmists – want to do. It’s something that the OLD generation of global warming alarmists for the most part refused to tell you: that this whole “climate change” malarkey is ultimately merely a guise to take what little wealth Obama will leave your children with, and redistributing it to all the impoverished nations such as Africa.

If you’re living in a country blessed with natural resources – and formerly blessed with capitalist free market economies – your children be damned.

Because Africa has for the most part ALWAYS embraced socialism (or what Dinesh D’Souza accurately calls “anticolonialism“), they should finally get their reward for their faithful embrace of such socialism. Their bounty should be seized by international fiat from your children’s mouths and given to socialist Africa’s children. And socialist Latin America’s. And socialist Asia’s children.

It’s the same “social justice” crap that liberals have been talking about. And when they need to recruit scientists to help legitimize their propaganda – offering enormous government-funded research grants as carrots – their will be plenty of “scientists” willing to make their “science” say whatever they want it to say.

And what goes on in these people’s minds, these neo-global-warming alarmists who want to accomplish all this?

This movement isn’t just bizarre. And it isn’t just flagrantly anti-Christ. It’s a “let the facts be damned in the face of our agenda” approach to reality and to science.

With United Nations climate negotiators facing an uphill battle to advance their goal of reducing emissions linked to global warming, it’s no surprise that the woman steering the talks appealed to a Mayan goddess Monday.

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also “the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you — because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools.”

She called for “a balanced outcome” which would marry financial and emissions commitments from industrialized countries aimed at combating climate change with “the understanding of fairness that will guide long-term mitigation efforts.”

“Excellencies, the goddess Ixchel would probably tell you that a tapestry is the result of the skillful interlacing of many threads,” said Figueres, who hails from Costa Rica and started her greetings in Spanish before switching to English. “I am convinced that 20 years from now, we will admire the policy tapestry that you have woven together and think back fondly to Cancun and the inspiration of Ixchel.”

Delegates from 193 countries are gathered in Cancun for the two-week meeting, which kicked off today at 10:20 a.m. local time, or 11:20 a.m. Eastern. Mexican President Felipe Calderon, a major proponent of action on climate change, attended the opening.

Two weeks from now, we’ll have a sense of whether Ixchel — and the delegates — were listening to Figueres’s appeal.

And, of course, these jet-setting “delegates ” hypocritically sent massive tonnages of carbon into the air as they met in the very kind of nice, warm climate that they want to tell us that we need to be so terrified of.

This isn’t the science of Bacon’s scientific method; it’s the “science” of pagan goddesses. It’s “socialism as science.” It’s the science of wealth redistributionism.

It’s a giant load of crap.

When I first heard about global warming and the potential destruction of the planet, I was open to the idea. There is nothing in my worldview that would be opposed to such a concept.

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”

VIENNA — Iran has amassed more than two tons of enriched uranium, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday in a report that heightened Western concerns about the country preparing to produce a nuclear weapon.

Two tons of uranium would suffice for two nuclear warheads, although Iran says it does not want weapons and is only pursuing civilian nuclear energy.

On enrichment, the report said Iran had now enriched 2,427 kilograms to just over three percent level. That means shipping out 1,200 kilograms (as proposed by the IAEA late in 2009) now would still leave Iran with more than enough material to make a nuclear weapon. That makes the deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil unattractive to the U.S and its allies

If the IAEA says that Iran has enough nuclear material to make two bombs, it probably has enough material to make 200. This is the UN agency that has been wrong all along. It was a terribly wrong IAEA report that gave despicable Democrats the ammunition to attack Bush when he tried to warn the country about the growing threat of Iran back when there was still plenty of time to do something about it.

Meanwhile, Israel is on the brink of war with the rest of the Middle East over a completely staged “massacre.” And one of the precursors setting this thing off is the realization by both the Israelis and the Muslims that Obama most definitely does NOT have Israel’s back. The Muslims have been waiting for this moment since Israel became a nation: for the time when a weak, appeasing fool refused for the first time in six decades to support Israel in its greatest hour of need.

Revelation chapter 6 tells us that in the last days there will be terrible wars, great economic calamity, and awful famine. And the beast will ride in on his white horse and appear to have a solution for everything.

And the naive fool of all fools who so arrogantly boasted that HE would be “the One” to create a global utopia will instead be the one to usher in the time of the worst dictator in human history.

As morally evil as the Iranian regime is, I have to hand it to them: they have been playing a naive and appeasing Barack Obama the way a master violinist plays a Stradivarius. At every single turn, they have fooled him, blocked him, tricked him, or stalled him while they have just continued feverishly working on developing a full-blown nuclear capability.

And now here we are, on the verge of a truly dark and terrible development in world history:

WASHINGTON – Iran’s launch of a satellite into orbit last week will likely give U.S. and European leaders greater cause for concern that the Islamic republic is approaching the ability to field long-range ballistic missiles while its nuclear program continues to progress, analysts here agreed.

The Iranian government-sponsored Islamic Republic News Agency reported Feb. 3 that Iran had launched a research satellite called Omid into orbit aboard a Safir-2 rocket. This is Iran’s first domestically produced satellite to reach orbit and the first to successfully launch on an Iranian-built launch vehicle, according to Press TV, an Iranian government-sponsored news outlet.

The U.S. government, while not explicitly confirming Iran has launched a satellite, has expressed concern that Iran’s development of a space launch vehicle establishes the technical basis to develop long-range ballistic missile systems.

“Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop its missile delivery capabilities remain a matter of deep concern,” U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said in a Feb. 3 statement. “Many of the technological building blocks involved in [space launch vehicles] are the same as those required to develop long-range ballistic missiles. … We will continue with our friends and allies in the region to address the threats posed by Iran, including those related to its missile and nuclear programs and its support of terrorism.”

Satellite watchers using orbital data provided from U.S. Strategic Command’s space surveillance network said the satellite is in an elliptical orbit that ranges from 242 kilometers to 382 kilometers in altitude, at an inclination of 55 degrees relative to the equator. Ted Molczan, an amateur satellite observer, said the satellite and part of the rocket that took it to space are both cataloged by Strategic Command and in similar orbits. The satellite appears to be tumbling, as its brightness in the sky changes rapidly, indicating the satellite’s likely lack of a stabilization or attitude control system. Both the satellite and rocket body are likely to begin to deorbit this summer, Molczan said.

“Dear people of Iran, your children have sent Iran’s first domestic satellite into orbit,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Press TV. “May this be a step toward justice and peace. Iran’s official presence in space has been added to the pages of history.”

Meanwhile, Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, which it says it has the right to develop for peaceful civil uses as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Iran argues it needs nuclear power and will not use the technology to make weapons. The United Nations Security Council, which includes permanent members China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, has urged Iran to suspend the program numerous times to no avail.

“This [Iranian satellite launch] I think highlights the dual-use issue again, just as the nuclear issue does, and that is technology can be used for peaceful purposes or for weapons that can threaten other countries,” said Ted Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a think tank here. “In terms of any kind of direct missile threat [to the United States], it’s likely to be many years before they could have that capability. The people worrying more are others in the Middle East and Europe.”

Carpenter said perhaps even more unsettling than the Iranian satellite launch are recent media reports that North Korea is again preparing to launch its three-stage Taepodong-2 missile, which some believe will have the range to reach U.S. territory. North Korea tested one of these missiles in 2006, but it failed shortly after launch and broke apart in the air.

“North Korea poses a much more direct threat to the United States because if it is true North Korea is planning to test an advanced version of the Taepodong-2, that could put Alaska and the U.S. west coast in range,” Carpenter said.

Thomas Donnelly, a defense and security policy analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said the United States and Europe ought to be concerned about the progression of Iranian technology. He argued that Iran is more of a threat to the United States than North Korea, based on Tehran’s backing of insurgents in Iraq.

“That has been a capability we have seen Iran developing, but the fact that it now has actually happened is a jarring punctuation mark,”Donnelly said. “Given what we believe about their nuclear program, it seems pretty clear they’re very close to having a complete, deliverable weapon that would have the ability to reach out to Europe.”

Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution here, said though the Iranian satellite launch may not show an increase in the physical range of Iranian weapon systems, it is perhaps a more impressive display of technological prowess than a missile test launch would have been.

“That suggests a certain amount of control and guidance mastery,” O’Hanlon said. “You’ve got to hit a fairly narrow band to put something in orbit, and the simple act of firing a missile doesn’t tell you anything about how close the missile landed to its target.

“It demonstrates more sophistication than I would have assumed, but I am not surprised they did this.”

Too few Americans (and for that matter Europeans) comprehend the magnitude of this development.

If Iran has nuclear weapons – and particularly if they have an intercontinental ballistic missile delivery system – they will be immune to attack. Do you believe that Barack Obama would attack a nuclear-armed Iran? I submit that Obama won’t dare attack a NON-nuclear armed Iran. And no American president would attack a nation at the cost of one or more major U.S. cities.

If Iran gets its nukes, it will be able to do a number of things: 1) attack Israel, assuring Israel that if it uses its nukes against Iran, Iran will use its nukes against Israel; 2) shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which would immediately drive up oil. The cost of gasoline in the U.S. would soar above $15 a gallon; 3) dramatically increase Iranian-sponsored terrorism worldwide.

If you don’t believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would pick a minimum of one of these options, you’re just nuts.

What we are seeing with Iran developing nuclear weapons and the means to project them is akin to the armament of Nazi Germany during the 1930s. Many immediately recognized the threat the Nazis posed, but those in leadership were appeasing weaklings who were more interested in “transforming” their own societies than they were confronting genuine evil abroad. The result was the Holocaust and the meat-grinder of World War II.

Democrats who are demagogues at heart will assert that George Bush allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons as will. They are liars: George Bush TRIED to persuade the U.S. to strongly confront Iran, and Democrats in Congress shrilly attacked him for his prescient knowledge of the Iranian threat. Democrats claimed that Iran had suspended its nuclear program, and that the regime no longer posed a threat. They couldn’t have been more wrong.

Finally, the dilemma of the Iranian nuclear program serves as a sober reinforcement of the rightness of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. As with Iraq, we have in Iran a closed, totalitarian society that our intelligence cannot reliably penetrate. How will we know for sure when and if Iran develops nuclear weapons? Do we simply choose to allow them to do so? Are we willing to suffer the consequences of the world’s largest terrorist state and supporter of terrorism to have nukes? Are we willing to give President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – who has publicly described his belief in an apocalyptic figure known as the “Twelfth Imam” who will come into the world via an act of global catastrophe – a nuclear trigger to place his finger upon? Are we willing to put nuclear weapons into the hands of someone who has repeatedly vowed to “wipe Israel off the map“?

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, you can pretty much figure that World War III is coming soon. For one thing, the country is led by apocalyptic religious fanatics who will likely either use the bomb to attack Israel, or else will smuggle it into the hands of terrorists who will do the job for them. For another, a nuclear weapon in Shiite Iran will trigger a nuclear arms race in the craziest region in the history of the world, as Sunni states feverishly work to build their own bomb to balance the power.

Meanwhile, we find both Democratic presidential candidates vocalizing longstanding opposition to the Iraq war, and promising a swift pullout if elected. The question is this: how can a president who claimed that the United States was wrong in attacking Iraq over legitimate concerns that it possessed weapons of mass destruction proceed to threaten to attack Iran over legitimate concerns that IT possesses nuclear weapons? And conversely, as the United States attempts to prevent Sunni Arab nations from developing their own nuclear weapons programs to balance Shiite Iran, how will a president – who refused to honor the American commitment to stand by Iraq – proceed to succeed in convincing Sunni countries that we will stand by them against any threat posed by Iran?

If we say that the United States was wrong to attack Iraq, then we tacitly affirm that it will be wrong to attack Iran even as it feverishly works on creating enough centrifuges to have the type of refined uranium it needs for one and only one purpose.

There was a process that the United Nations ostensibly provided by which two nations in material disagreement could come to a fair resolution. But what should have been an honest process was interfered with and corrupted by powerful member nations and by the United Nations itself. If we are going to blame anyone for the invasion, then let us blame countries like France and Russia, as well as the corrupt and grossly incompetent and negligent United Nations. They made it impossible for any just solution to prevail. In Saddam Hussein’s own words and thoughts, their protection and interference gave him the idea that he could defy the United States and keep the inspectors at bay without any meaningful consequence.

Those same countries are now protecting Iran the SAME exact way. They are opposing sanctions and resolutions against Iran the SAME WAY they did against Iraq. Since both countries are permanent veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council, they can absolutely shield Iran from ANY resolution as they choose. And Barack Obama would have no choice but to go it alone if he wants to stop Iran’s nuclear program the same way Bush had to choose to go it alone.

But Obama WON’T DO THAT. Which means Iran will have its nuclear capability during his watch.

Those officials said that taking time could be costly because the U.S. risked losing the Afghans’ support. “Dithering is just as destructive as 10 car bombs,” the senior official in Kabul said. “They have seen us leave before. They are really good at picking the right side to ally with.”

Obama has turned “dithering” into a weapon of mass destruction against American foreign policy. Our allies are being forced to make increasingly tough decisions as to whether we really are the horse they should bet their lives on. And our enemies are resurgent, believing that the president who has demonstrated a lack of resolve will withdraw if they can pile up a high enough body count.

On November 7 there will be another election in Afghanistan. And there will not be anywhere near enough troops to provide adequate security.

There would have been, had Obama accepted his own handpicked general’s assessment. But there won’t be. It seems increasingly likely that the resurgent Taliban will be able to thwart the elections, creating an ongoing political instability which will cascade into a major failures against stability in Afghanistan.

But Obama is not just dithering in Afghanistan. Rather, his entire foreign policy is based on dithering.

A nuclear-armed Iran capable of destroying Israel, capable of blockading the Strait of Hormuz and causing oil prices to quintuple, capable of launching a wave of global jihad such as the world has never seen, looms.

Iran agreed a deal “in principle” at talks in Geneva to ship the majority of its low-enriched uranium overseas for reprocessing into nuclear fuel that could be used for a medical research reactor.

A deal outlining this was finalised in Vienna this week and a deadline of midnight tonight was set for the agreement to be sealed with Tehran.

The framework deal, along with an offer to allow international inspectors into its newly-revealed enrichment plant at Qom, was hailed as evidence that Iran was responding positively to the diplomatic track.

Today, however, with just hours until the deadline, Iran has turned the table on its foreign interlocutors with a rival proposal, demanding that it be allowed to buy higher enriched uranium directly from abroad. […]

The counter-proposal was outlined on Iranian state television today as the clock ticked down to the midnight deadline. “The Islamic Republic of Iran is waiting for a constructive and confidence-building response to the clear proposal of buying fuel for the Tehran research reactor,” state television quoted an unnamed source close to Iran’s negotiating team as saying. […]

Russia and China’s reluctance to consider new sanctions is forcing Washington to seek a coalition of willing allies to impose their own economic blockade on Iran if efforts to get UN sanctions fail.
Tehran’s latest move comes straight from a well-thumbed Iranian playbook and looks like yet another stalling tactic to test the West’s resolve and buy time to avert new sanctions. But Western patience is growing thinner by the day, with diplomats warning that the apparent breakthrough in Geneva on October 1 may be less positive than it first seemed.

Anxiety is now growing about what will happen on Sunday when inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arrive in Iran to inspect the long-hidden nuclear plant at Qom.

“It’s like Groundhog Day,” a senior Western diplomat involved in the Iran negotiations said. “Except in Groundhog Day you wake up every day and everything’s the same. With this, you wake up every day and everything’s just a little bit worse.” […]

Britain, France and Israel believe that Iran has all the know-how it needs to build a bomb and that weaponisation studies have continued despite Tehran’s insistence that it halted them years ago.

The IAEA has called Western intelligence on weaponisation “compelling” and chided Iran for refusing to answer questions on the subject. Iran remains in breach of five UN resolutions calling on it to halt enrichment until outstanding questions about a military dimension to the programme are resolved.

One major sticking point has been President Obama’s softer stance on Iran, while President Sarkozy prefers a more hawkish approach. Sarkozy said last month: “I support America’s outstretched hand. But what has the international community gained from these offers of dialogue? Nothing but more enriched uranium and centrifuges.”

We are looking at exactly the same scenario regarding Iran as George Bush faced regarding Iraq; namely, veto-wielding permanent member UN nations that will thwart any meaningful or legitimate sanction that could truly stop the rogue nation’s quest for weapons of mass destruction. This has been the case for years. We cannot rely on international consensus as the basis for our security; it will let us down every single time.

Nor can we rely upon dialogue with evil tyrants to achieve our foreign policy objectives. What I said a year ago last August in that regard is even more true now. You simply cannot negotiate with an untrustworthy partner who does not want peace.

Allow me to guarantee you that a Democratic administration will see a nuclear Iran. Given their policy on Iraq, it becomes an implicit campaign promise. And it will see a nuclearized Middle East. Democrats have spent forty years proving that they are cowards who will not stand by their allies, and their actions will come home to roost.

A Republican president can say to the Iranians, “We went in to Iran when we thought they might attack us, Iran. And I promise that will do the same to you if you continue your weapons program.” And no one can question that. A Republican president can say to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, “We stayed with Iraq and defended them even when it was difficult, and we’ll do the same for you.” and no one can question that.

Barack Obama will not go to war with Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. And Iran knows that. Iran also knows that their Russian and Chinese allies will prevent any sanction that could truly hurt them from passing the useless United Nations.

As a result of Obama’s dithering, the world’s worst terrorist state will soon have the bomb, and the ballistic missile capability to deliver that bomb. And when they get it, the world will change in very scary ways.

“reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.”

Kenneth Pollack, writing in the liberal journal The Atlantic, said the following:

This issue has some personal relevance for me. I began my career as a Persian Gulf military analyst at the CIA, where I saw an earlier generation of technical analysts mistakenly conclude that Saddam Hussein was much further away from having a nuclear weapon than the post-Gulf War inspections revealed. I later moved on to the National Security Council, where I served two tours, in 1995-1996 and 1999-2001. During the latter stint the intelligence community convinced me and the rest of the Clinton Administration that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs following the withdrawal of the UN inspectors, in 1998, and was only a matter of years away from having a nuclear weapon.

He cites a number of reasons for the U.S. view (which, again, had been held by the Clinton administration as well) and then adds:

Western intelligence agencies understandably took these actions to mean that nothing in Saddam’s weaponry plans had changed.

And to that we can also add E) There is actually good reason to believe that Bush – and the Democrats quoted in the three sites above – were COMPLETELY CORRECT in believing that Saddam had WMD.

Part of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons program was transferred from Iraq to neighbouring Syria, and their status has yet to be resolved, Dr David Kay, the just-resigned head of the Iraq Survey Group, was quoted Sunday as telling a British newspaper.

In what it called an exclusive interview, the Sunday Telegraph said it was told by Dr Kay that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before the start of the Iraq war in March last year.

But there was another reason that George Bush decided to make Iraq a central front in the war on terror: he knew he could win there, and he knew that his victory would have a huge impact on the region over time.

Think of it: an Arab and Islamic democracy in the heart of the totalitarian Arab world. Think of other Islamic states, whether Iran or Saudi Arabia, having to explain to its people why their countries shouldn’t be more democratic, just like Iraq. George Bush believed that a democratic Iraq could potentially turn around a poisonous Islamist dynamic that was growing more and more poisonous all the time.

The question of whether President Obama should send more troops to Afghanistan misses the point.

What Obama really needs to do is: Invent a time machine, go back to the 2008 presidential campaign and not say, over and over and over again, that Afghanistan was a “war of necessity” while the war in Iraq was a “war of choice.” (Oh, and as long as you’re back there, ditch Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett and that gay “school safety” czar.)

The most important part of warfare is picking your battlefield, and President Bush picked Iraq for a reason.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11 — or the dozen other times American embassies, barracks and buildings came under jihadist onslaught since Jimmy Carter presided over “regime change” in Iran in 1979. Both countries — and others — gave succor to terrorists who had attacked the U.S. repeatedly, and would do so again.

As liberals endlessly reminded us during the three weeks of war in Afghanistan before the U.S. military swept into Kabul, Afghanistan has all the makings of a military disaster. It is mountainous, cave-pocked, tribal, has no resources worth fighting for and a populace that makes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed look like Alistair Cooke.

By contrast, Iraq had a relatively educated, pro-Western populace, but was ruled by a brutal third-world despot.

It’s always something with the Muslims. You either have mostly sane people governed by a crazy dictator — Iraq, Iran and Syria (also California and Michigan) — or a crazy people governed by relatively sane leaders — Pakistan and Afghanistan, post-U.S. invasion (also Vermont and Minnesota). There are also insane people ruled by insane leaders (but enough about the House Democratic Caucus). Sane people with sane rulers has not been fully tried yet.

Not only could regime change in Iraq work, but Iraq’s countryside was susceptible to America’s overwhelming air power. Also, Iraq has fabulous natural resources. Once the U.S. got control of Iraq’s oil fields, the Shia, Sunni and Kurds could decide to either prosper together or starve together. (And it’s not just oil: They’re basically sitting on top of most of the world’s proven reserves of cab drivers.)

By contrast, there aren’t a lot of sticks that can be used in a wasteland like Afghanistan, where the people live in caves and scratch out a living in the dirt. The only “carrot” we might be able to offer them would be actual carrots.

But Democrats couldn’t care less about military strategy — at least any “strategy” that doesn’t involve allowing soldiers to date one another. To the extent you can get liberals to focus on national security at all, you will find they are rooting against their own country.

Liberals sneered at Bush’s description of Iraq as the “central front of the war on terror” and a step toward the “democratization of the Middle East” — as Mark Danner did in the Sept. 11, 2005, New York Times — because sneering was all they could do. By design, Iraq was the central front in the war on terrorism.

Any fanatic who hated the Great Satan, owned an overnight bag and was not already working for The New York Times was lured across the border into Iraq … to be met by the awesome force of the U.S. military. Bush chose the battlefield that made the best flytrap for Islamic crazies and also that was most amenable to regime change.

Now nearly all denizens of the Middle East want the U.S. to invade them, so they can live in democracy, too. As Thomas Friedman inadvertently admitted, Lebanese voters credit their recent free election, in which the voters threw out Hezbollah, to President Bush. (American liberals, naturally, gave the credit to Obama, who they also believe is responsible for the sun rising every morning.)

Brave Iranian students who protested the tyrant Ahmadinejad did so because of Iraq — and then they stopped because of Obama’s indifference. Sadly for them, America’s foreign policy will now be based on a calculus of political correctness, not national security.

During the campaign, Obama prattled on about Iraq being a “war of choice” and Afghanistan a “war of necessity” for no more thoughtful reason than a desire to win standing ovations from treasonous liberals.

But lo and behold, those very liberals who were champing at the bit to fight in Afghanistan are suddenly full of objections to the war there, too. As Frank Rich points out: “Afghanistan is not Iraq. It is poorer, even larger and more populous, more fragmented and less historically susceptible to foreign intervention.”

Now they notice.

Afghanistan is a brutal battlefield, largely invulnerable to modern warfare — something the British and Russians learned. But as our military under Bush showed the world in 21 days, scimitar-wielding savages are no match for the voluntary civilian troops of a free people.

Bush removed the Taliban from power, captured or killed the lunatics and, for the next seven years, about the only news we heard out of Afghanistan were occasional announcements of parliamentary elections, new schools, water and electricity plants.

The difficult choice Obama faces in Afghanistan is entirely of his own making, not his generals’ and certainly not Bush’s. It was Obama’s meaningless blather about Afghanistan being a “war of necessity” during the campaign that has moved the central front in the war on terrorism from Iraq — a good battleground for the U.S. — to Afghanistan — a lousy battlefront for the U.S.

And it was Obama’s idea to treat war as if it’s an ordinary drug bust, reading suspects their Miranda rights and taking care not to put civilians in harm’s way.

A Democrat is president and, once again, America finds itself in an “unwinnable war.” I know Democrats will never learn, but I wish the voters would.

Ann Coulter does an excellent job depicting why Iraq was a place where we could win, and Afghanistan was a place where we could fall into an abyss. Iraq – with its flat terrain and its conventional military dynamic, was a place where American technological might could completely dominate.

In making Iraq the central front, Bush chose a war that he knew America could win.

In demanding that Afghanistan be the central front, Democrats – and in particular Barack Obama – may well have chosen a war that we can’t win.

And Democrats now have a well-known history of losing wars since 1950.

Hence her title, Natural born losers.

And allow me to take that concept of the people now leading our country being “natural born losers,” and turn it to the even greater threat of Iran.

I’m going to close by pointing out that George Bush faced a similar dilemma in Iraq that Barack Obama will face in Iran: the utter uselessness and in fact counter-productiveness of the United Nations.

Russia, China, and France all had permanent member veto power, and all three had no intention of allowing any kind of meaningful sanction, resolution, or threat of military force to be passed by the United Nations. While France has since joined the United States’ side, China and Russia will continue to be a thorn in the side of any effort to thwart Iran’s ultimate nuclear weapons ambitions (which merely continues a pattern that had ben going on for years).

If Barack Obama still believes that he will be able to woo these countries – or for that matter Western Europe – to his side, he is a naive fool. Just as he was always a naive fool for trusting in such patent nonsense.

And, so, just as with Bush and Iraq, Barack Obama will be largely forced to go it alone if he wants to prevent the terribly dangerous development of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Nearly a year-and-a-half ago, I pointed out that a Democrat president who demonized the war in Iraq would be unable to justify a war to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. And absolutely nothing has since happened to change that conclusion one iota.